Irfan And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CRM-M No.41989 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.41989 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.9.2017 ...

Irfan and others ................Petitioners vs.

State of Haryana and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan Present: Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Tushant Deep Garg, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

...

H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral) Petitioners - Irfan and others have brought the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 204 dated 16.10.2016, for offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli, against them, alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise, stated to have been effected between them and complainant Savir - arrayed as respondent No.2 and injured Shahid -

CRM-M No.41989 of 2016 -2arrayed as respondent No.3. When the petition came up for hearing on 23.11.2016, notice of motion was ordered to be issued. The respondent No. 1 - State of Haryana through State counsel, whereas respondents No.2 and 3 through Mr. Tushant Deep Garg, Advocate, had put in appearance. Then in light of the contention that parties have since effected compromise, they were directed to put in appearance before the Illaqa Magistrate to get their statements recorded with regard to compromise and the Magistrate was directed to send a report to this Court.

Report has been received from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sub Division, Bilaspur, in terms of which complainant Savir and injured Wahid and Sahid and accused, namely, Irfan, Imran, Riyasat, Malkhan and Sakhiya had appeared there and their statements were recorded, in terms of which they have admitted to have entered into a voluntary compromise, with free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence. Further complainant/injured had stated that they had no objection if the FIR in question is quashed by this Court. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of the compromise so arrived at between the parties. Alongwith the report joint statement of the complainant/injured and all the accused, in original, have been annexed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, besides going through the record.

Keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the

CRM-M No.41989 of 2016 -3parties has been resolved amicably, which appears to have been arrived at between them voluntarily without any threat or coercion and in terms of ratio of the authority reported as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, where in para 28, it has been held as under :- "The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour of justice".

Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation."

The compromise is in interest of peace and tranquility in the society and for such like reasons this Court can quash the FIR and ancillary

CRM-M No.41989 of 2016 -4proceedings exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears to be a fit case to exercise such powers.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid FIR alongwith ancillary proceedings are hereby quashed. ( H.S. Madaan ) Judge 20.9.2017 chugh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No